 |
|
|
|
|
Download
contents page of full report (PDF - 190k - with links to all other chapters)
or individual chapters:
Intro,
1, 2,
3a,
3b,
3c,
3d, 4,
5,
6,
7.
(HINT: right click and save the file to your hard disk before opening)
or purchase the printed report online
Summary of full report
Adoption of Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture:
Part II – Analysis of 40 Case Studiesby Genevieve Carruthers
Environmental Systems Specialist, NSW Agriculture
Publication Number: 05/032
May 2005
However, for many people, both in Australia and overseas, the concept of applying a management process to natural resources on-farm is foreign; scepticism of improved environmental outcomes is common, and uncertainty regarding the benefits of EMS use remains one of the major barriers to support and adoption of this management tool.
Application of EMS processes, typically within the secondary industry sector, has led to a perception by some in agricultural industries that use of EMS on farms is ‘beyond farmers’, ‘too hard’, ‘too complex’ and ‘too expensive’. Much of the uncertainty regrading benefits and costs of EMS implementation comes from a lack of information regarding its use in agriculture. Many of the methods of evaluation and measurement of EMS use and success may not be appropriate.
The interview results analysed in the current publication and the individual stories published previously (Carruthers 2003b) were developed to meet the expressed desire of the 1999 workshop delegates for information about the application of EMS to farming enterprises. What motivates a farmer to undertake an EMS? Does the use of EMS help farmers manage better? Are there any differences between using an EMS and addressing environmental issues in other ways? Are there market advantages to be gained? How do farm managers go about developing and implementing their EMSs and where do they get help? What does implementing an EMS cost? What are the environmental outcomes that arise? What benefits accrue to the business?
The aim of this report
To assess the usefulness
of applying a process of management more usually associated with secondary
industry within an agricultural context, there is an obvious need for baseline
information.
Specifically, this report aims to:
One central question
framed in this study is ‘Does using an EMS add anything to existing farm
management, where the farmer is already operating at a recognised “higher”
level of environmental stewardship than their peers? ’ Participants in
this study were chosen because their environmental management skills were
recognised by peers or agency staff. Farmers in both the EMS group and
the environmental management program (EMP) group had already completed
a range of environmental works on their farms. Both groups could be anticipated
to be conducting farm operations with a high regard to environmental concerns,
and therefore be reasonably expected to have similar attitudes to the environment.
Is there anything different about those farmers who choose to use an EMS?
This study was undertaken at a time when EMS implementation on-farm in
Australia was at a very early stage. Consequently, there was a very small
pool of farms to study, and many of the EMSs implemented were in the first
one to two years of operation.
Therefore, these results, at best, allow for general analysis of possible trends, and suggested actions for future developments are tentative.
What is an EMS?
An EMS is an on-going cycle
of planning, implementing, reviewing and improving the processes and actions
that a business or organisation undertakes to meet both its own desired
aspirations and, where applicable, externally regulated, environmental
obligations. An EMS features a process of continuous improvement, and is
based on management principles that are common across a range of areas,
such as quality, finance, and occupational health and safety. The EMS management
cycle can most easily be summarised as a ‘Plan, Do, Check, Act’ approach.
These four features are expanded into a range of ‘elements’ in two internationally
recognised documents, the ISO 14001 Standard (ISO 1997) and the Eco-Management
and Audit Scheme Regulation (EMAS), which cover management areas such as
risk assessment and analysis, planning, communication, training, document
and record development and control, operational control, review and auditing.
Farms in this study deemed EMS farm were able to demonstrate management
practices addressed all elements described in ISO 14001, but these farms
had not necessarily been certified against that Standard.
What is an EMP?
Farmers who were following
a range of practices (both natural resource management and/or business)
are termed EMP farmers in this report. In some cases, these EMPs mirrored
some, but not all of the elements being used in EMSs, however, all EMP
farms lacked one or more of the elements that would be required for an
EMS.
For example, on EMP farms, environmental impacts may have been assessed, but not from a risk analysis perspective and the management practices did not show a consistent method of such impact identification and risk assessment. Most commonly, the EMP farms had not addressed the ‘systems’ elements covered on the EMS farms – written policy statements, consistent processes developed to cover training, communication, document and operational control and record keeping. This is not to say that the EMP farms and their managers were doing a better or worse job than that on EMS farms, just that things had been done differently. In many cases, the EMP farms could have met the requirements to be considered EMS farms with small adjustments to their management practices.
Study methods
This report provides an
analysis of responses given by individual farmers and farm managers to
questions asked during interviews (Carruthers 2003b). Responses are compared
to determine if there are any major differences between the farmers using
a non-systematic approach for farm management (the EMP group) and those
using an EMS.
Case study participants were identified through recommendations from farm organisations and associations, conservation groups and state agricultural and regulatory agencies. Over 70 potential candidates were identified, with 40 participants chosen for the final study. Of these, 17 were using a formal EMS approach based on ISO 14001 or related systems (the EMS group); the others (the EMP group) were addressing environmental matters using various methods that did not include all elements regarded as ‘systems’ elements in their management approach.
Farms included in the study covered a range of enterprises – viticulture, aquaculture, mixed (usually cropping/livestock combinations), intensive and extensive livestock, horticulture, and broadacre cropping.
 
|
